Explanation: This is through a Shinuy. However, one cannot [write] Tefilin through a Shinuy, for it requires Kesivah Tamah (a perfect writing).

Our Mishnah does not discuss making Tefilin [boxes] and Tzitzis. Perhaps the Isur is only writing and spinning.

Pesak: People are accustomed to write in a circle. We do not find a Heter for this;

Support: Also Tosfos ha'Rav, in the name of his Rebbi, says so.

Even in pressed circumstances, for a Yisrael who was seized, he permitted with difficulty.

They did not permit even through [writing] reversed, which is read from the other side.

Strengthening of Pesak: Even if it is not forbidden due to Melachah, we forbid even exertion that is not Melachah (4a).

However, the custom is to say that our Mishnah does not discuss writing reversed [and to permit this].

Some write through dividing (making a break in) the letter. My Rebbi, my grandfather, did so;

One cannot divide a Yud (because it is too small), so he wrote it reversed.

Opinion #1: Seemingly, he is more stringent than R. Meir, who permitted others.

Opinion #2 (another Tosfos): R. Meir permits only through scheming.

Question (our Tosfos): I do not understand this.

Note: Perhaps the other Tosfos explains that R. Meir permits for others only through scheming, like R. Yehudah. Our Tosfos holds that his words connote unlike this (Sefas Emes).

Opinion #1: He totally permits writing for others for pay, but only Kedei Parnesaso [what is needed for his income]. Seemingly, he is the most lenient opinion.

Support: Also Rabeinu Avraham) explained like this.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Avraham also explained that all [of the Tana'im] permit Kedei Parnesaso, for he has nothing to eat;

They discuss only when he has what to eat, and R. Yosi is more stringent than all of them.

Rebuttal: The words of the Gemara connote otherwise. [According to Rabeinu Avraham], it should have said "he may write only Kedei Parnesaso"!

Question: However, also R. Yehudah's words are somewhat difficult. He should have said "he may write only Kedei Parnesaso through others, or through a scheme"!

Now, our Mishnah is like R. Meir.

Note: The Maharsha did not understand this. It seems that our Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who permits Kedei Parnesaso! Rashash fixes the text to say "R. Yosi". Shalmei Todah says that below, Tosfos cites R. Yonah to show how our Mishnah is like R. Meir, the first Tana of the Beraisa.

Opinion #3: Some say that "Kedei Parnesaso" does not mean that when he has nothing to eat, it is permitted;

[Rather,], since it is for the sake of a Mitzvah, it is permitted to profit through it, since he will not want to do it for free.

Opinion #4: Tosfos of the Rav explained that the Mishnah argues with all [three of] these Tana'im. It is another (fourth) Tana.

Opinion #5: R. Yonah explains that the Mishnah is like the first Tana. It means that one may not write Seforim, Tefilin and Mezuzos in order to sell them or to wear them.

He also explained that the Mishnah is like R. Yosi, based on what he said that R. Yosi is stringent.

Inference: One may wear Tefilin [during the Moed, for Tana'im permit writing for use during the Moed]!

Rejection: Perhaps R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold like they taught elsewhere (Eruvin 96b), that Shabbos is Zman Tefilin (the Mitzvah applies even on Shabbos);

[Rav and] Rabah bar bar Chanah [who permit to write and sell normally, Kedei Parnesaso] can hold like this (the buyer will wear them during the Moed), even though all the Amora'im in Menachos 36b connote that Shabbos is not Zman Tefilin.

Question: However, Riva proved from the Yerushalmi that one may wear Tefilin [on Chol ha'Moed].

Citation (Yerushalmi): A man lost his Tefilin on Chol ha'Moed. He came in front of Rav Chananel.

Explanation: He wanted Rav Chananel to write another pair for him. Rav Chananel was a scribe, like it says in Megilah 18b.

Citation (cont.): Rav Chananel sent him to Rabah bar bar Chanah, who said that Rav Chananel should give his Tefilin to the man, and then write for himself, like the Mishnah permits;

He came in front of Rav, who said that Rav Chananel should write for him, i.e. without a scheme.

Citation (Question): Our Mishnah argues with Rav! It permits one to write Tefilin for himself, but not for others!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Rav explains that the Mishnah discusses one who writes Lehani'ach.

Explanation: Rav explains that the Mishnah to discuss one who writes to wear them after the Moed, but one may write [even for others] to wear them during the Moed.

Pesak: Bahag rules that one may not wear Tefilin during Chol ha'Moed.

According to the reason we exclude Shabbos and Yom Tov, due to "mi'Yamim Yemimah" (not all days), presumably this excludes also Chol ha'Moed;

According to the opinion (Menachos 36a) that "Lecha l'Os" excludes Shabbos and Yom Tov, which themselves are Osos (signs that Hash-m took us from Mitzrayim, i.e. we cease from Melachah), we can exclude also Chol ha'Moed, since the only Melachah we do is Devar ha'Avud.

Question: However, according to what I explained above (2a DH Mashkin), that Melachah on Chol ha'Moed is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, how can we exclude it?

Answer: Since he eats Matzah or sits in a Sukah, he does not need an [additional] Os.

Implied question: If it is true that one must wear Tefilin on Chol ha'Moed [why don't we say that he already has an Os of Matzah or the Sukah]?

Answer: Since we do Melachah on Chol ha'Moed, it is not an Os;

"Mi'Yamim Yemimah" excludes only Yom Tov, which is [very] different than other days [and all the more so Shabbos].

Explanation: It mentions burial, because Avelus begins from Stimas ha'Golel, like we say below (27a).

Explanation: This is the primary Avelus for several matters. We say below (27a) "three days for crying".

Suggestion: Here, it would be better if the text said "days" regarding why they were not Batel.

Rejection: One need not change the text. Also our text means this.

Opinion #1: It seems that similarly, he may not launder after the Regel;

If it was permitted to bathe and launder on Erev Yom Tov, and he did not launder or bathe, he may not launder after the Regel.

Support: This is why it says "the decree of Shivah was Batel, but the days were not Batel" (for sometimes he is still forbidden afterwards).

Question: Shortly below, it says "just like the Mitzvah of three (observing three days of Shivah) is Mevatel Gezeiras Shivah", even according to the first Tana that it is Mevatel even days,

Aba Sha'ul brings a proof [from there] to the Mitzvah of Sheloshim, that it is totally Batel, even the days. (Both of them hold that Shivah is totally Batel, even the days!)

Opinion #2 (R. Yonah): This is only if he did not shave [Erev ha'Regel], but not even if he did not launder;

He may launder [after the Moed] even if he did not launder [Erev ha'Regel], for laundering is a greater need.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. If it is such a great need, all the more so we should fine him if he did not do so before the Regel and entered the Regel [unprepared]!

Rashi's opinion: Below, Rashi explains "if the third day was Erev ha'Regel, he may not bathe until evening", i.e. dark.

Question: If so (there was no Heter towards the end of Erev Yom Tov), there is no reason to fine him for not bathing or laundering. If so, in what way were days not Batel regarding Shivah?

Answer #1: We can say that if he did not bathe during the Regel, he may not bathe after the Regel.

Answer #2: Since the Seifa says "Gezeiras", also the Reisha says "Gezeiras". (Only regarding Sheloshim there is an inference that the days are not Batel, but not regarding Shivah.)

Answer #3: The Reisha means that [if burial was] three days before the Regel, Gezeiras Shivah is Batel. If it was [only] two days before the Regel, Gezeiras [Shivah] is not Batel.

Proof (for Rashi): In any case, his Perush is correct, for below it says "just like Gezeiras Sheloshim is Mevatel Gezeiras Shivah..." This implies that this was clear even to the first Tana.

Note: The Maharsha says that from here until the end of this Dibur is superfluous (and should be deleted). Indeed, most of it seems to repeat what Tosfos already said.

Question: When we answer "if he did not shave on it (Erev Yom Tov)", this is fine for the Seifa, but in the Reisha, when we say Gezeiras Shivah is Batel, why does it say Gezeiras, and in what way were days not Batel?

Answer #1: Since the Seifa says "Gezeiras", also the Reisha says "Gezeiras".

Answer #2: The Reisha means that [if burial was] three days before the Regel, Gezeiras Shivah is Batel. If it was [only] two days before the Regel, Gezeiras [Shivah] is not Batel.

Answer #3: The days are not Batel regarding private matters [which apply during the Moed].

Question (Tosfos ha'Rav): Why don't we say that the Amora'im argue like the Tana'im do? Rav Sheshes holds like Aba Sha'ul, and Rav Huna holds like the first Tana!

Answer: Perhaps it is because the Beraisa mentions the expression "were Batel", and we say that according to him (the first Tana), the days are not Batel;

Consequence: If so, the Beraisa is not like Rav Sheshes, for Rav Sheshes holds that also the days are Batel, for "were Batel" connotes totally. (I.e. the Beraisa refutes Rav Sheshes' inference from the word "Batel".) So it seems to me.

Pesak: It seems that the Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul in everything that he argues with the first Tana, both whether or not Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and if he did not shave.

This is because he did not distinguish "the Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul regarding Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo" or "regarding shaving" - R. Yonah.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: According to Rabanan of Aba Sha'ul, what is the difference between day 30 and day eight?

Citation (cont.): They say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo regarding day eight, and he may shave Erev ha'Regel, but they do not say so on day 30 to permit shaving.

Citation (cont.) Answer: They permit due to Kevod ha'Regel.

Support: When his eighth day falls on Shabbos that is Erev ha'Regel he may shave Erev Shabbos, but when day 30 falls on Shabbos, the may not shave Erev Shabbos.

Opinion #1: An Avel may not comb his hair after seven days, for we say (Nazir 42a) that a Nazir may shampoo and Mefasfes, but he may not comb (for he will surely uproot hairs), and we learn [Avel] from Nazir.

Rejection (and Opinion #2): Surely it is forbidden for a Nazir. Even if he pulled out his hair, it is forbidden;

Avelus is due to beauty. We do not forbid this.

When this was occurred in practice (I was an Avel), I asked my Rebbi, the Riva, and he permitted me [to comb].

Pesak (R. Yom Tov): Since we hold that part of the seventh day is like the entire day, and it counts in both directions (towards Shivah, and towards Sheloshim), he may shave on day 29.

Note: Why does Tosfos bring this opinion here? Perhaps it is to show another way in which Avelus is unlike Nezirus. However, see the next Tosfos.

Rejection (Tosfos ha'Rav): We do not say that the seventh day is like two days regarding 30 days.

Assertion: According to Bar Pada, who expounds (Nazir 5a, the 29 occurrences of) "Nazir" and "Lehazir" to forbid [a Nazir to shave on] the 29th day, and permit the 30th, and Nezirus is 29 days, he must hold like Aba Sha'ul explained. (This is like R. Yom Tov, that day seven counts like two days, so 29 days suffice for Sheloshim.)

Rejection: However, we can say that l'Chatchilah, a Nazir may not shave until the 30th day mid'Rabanan, like it connotes here.

Support: The Yerushalmi asks from the Mishnah (Nazir 16a), that if he shaved on day 29, he was Yotzei, and answers that this is b'Di'eved. L'Chatchilah, he must wait until day 30. This is like I explained.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At night, he may bathe in cold water.

Explanations #2,3: Alternatively, he may wash his face, hands and feet [in hot water], but not the entire body in hot water, for one may not bathe on Yom Tov. Alternatively, [he may bathe the entire body] in hot spring water of Teverya.

Explanation #4: Alternatively, he may shower (pour water on the entire body. R. Shimon permits this even in hot water - Shabbos 39b.)

Explanation #5: Alternatively, he may bathe in hot water heated in the ground. We say in Shabbos that [Tana'im] argue about water heated in a Kli [but all permit in water heated in the ground].

Question: Why don't Rabanan say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo on the third and seventh days, but Aba Sha'ul permits on day seven through Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo?

Suggestion: It is because he may bathe on Yom Tov, and he will not be repulsive.

Rejection: This could explain bathing. However, how can we explain [why do not say Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo to permit] laundering? It seems to the Ri that we do not permit laundering on the third day.

Answer: Avelus of Shivah is more stringent.

Bahag's opinion: Likewise, the fourth or fifth day [if it is Erev ha'Regel] is forbidden until Erev. Until here is from [another] Tosfos.

Explanation #6 (R. Yom Tov): "Until Erev" means until Erev Yom Tov. It excludes the morning, which is forbidden.

Assertion: It seems that likewise, laundering is permitted towards evening on Erev Yom Tov.

Inference: According to this, it seems that [within] Shivah before the Regel, Rabanan permit on Erev Yom Tov.

Since [Rav Huna] says "everyone agrees", i.e. even Aba Sha'ul, who permits in the morning of the seventh, here he agrees to Rabanan that it is not permitted from the morning. Rather, it has the law of the seventh day according to Rabanan.

Explanation (Tosfos [ha'Rav]): We have a similar question if he buried him two days before the Regel.

Question: Just below, the law is clear if he buried him two days before the Regel!

The Gemara said "doesn't this apply to the Seifa? No, it applies to the Reisha."

Inference: If it applies to the Reisha, this is fine. (If he buried him two days before the Regel, the Regel counts towards the days.)

Answer: Perhaps the Rav wanted to say that he asked both of them, and we tried to answer both of them, and answered (rejected) that we cannot resolve both.

Qualification: However, private matters apply, like Kesuvos 4a connotes [regarding when the Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother died just before the Chupah];

Citation (4a): All those days [of Avelus], he sleeps among men, and she sleeps among women. This supports R. Yochanan.

Support: Also the Rav explained so in the name of his Rebbi.

Implied question: We can learn from our Mishnah that [the Regel] does not count towards Shivah, for it says "they interrupt, but do not count." At the least, the Mishnah discusses Shivah! (Why did Abaye need to give a reason, that Mitzvos of Shivah do not apply during the Regel?)

Answer: We could say that he gives the reason why it was obvious that the Mishnah teaches that it does not count towards Shivah. Perhaps it discusses Sheloshim!

Explanation: This is [permitted] even in his house.

Implied question: Above (11b), we say that if his work was in others' hands, it is forbidden in his house, and permitted in their houses!

Answer: Here we discuss Devar ha'Avud.